-
1 Attachment(s)
EU: Proposed 18% CO2 cut
According to BBC, manufacturers that are selling cars to the EU, must reduce their CO2 emissions drastically.
In 1998 the manufacturers and the EU voluntarily agreed to aim for average emissions of 140g/km by 2008/9, but are no longer expected to meet this target. This is because the 2005 level is 162 g/km, so it is unrealistic to expect a fall to 140 g/km by 2009.
Instead a new plan was agreed. The commission will propose a package of measures designed to bring emissions from the average new car down to 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012 - 25% below the 2005 level of 162g/km.
Carmakers would be be responsible for getting emissions down to 130g/km through the use better car technology, under the commission proposal.
Increased use of biofuels, better tyres and measures to ensure drivers change gear at the right time would help to save the extra 10g/km.
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6334327.stm[/url]
-
[quote=lightweight]According to BBC, manufacturers that are selling cars to the EU, must reduce their CO2 emissions drastically.
In 1998 the manufacturers and the EU voluntarily agreed to aim for average emissions of 140g/km by 2008/9, but are no longer expected to meet this target. This is because the 2005 level is 162 g/km, so it is unrealistic to expect a fall to 140 g/km by 2009.
Instead a new plan was agreed. The commission will propose a package of measures designed to bring emissions from the average new car down to 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012 - 25% below the 2005 level of 162g/km.
Carmakers would be be responsible for getting emissions down to 130g/km through the use better car technology, under the commission proposal.
Increased use of biofuels, better tyres and measures to ensure drivers change gear at the right time would help to save the extra 10g/km.
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6334327.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6334327.stm[/URL][/quote]
One could see this coming... It's their own fault :o
-
[QUOTE=drakkie]One could see this coming... It's their own fault :o[/QUOTE]
I agree with you.
It must be noted that the previous agreement between EU and carmakers was fundamentally flawed, since it was voluntary. There was no cotract/fines for not meeting targets.
Anyway, looking at the bigger picture, the consumer pays for all this. According to the BBC link I posted above, it is expected that car cost will rise by 400-2500 Euros on average.
What must be said is that ground transportation emissions accounts only for 30% of all carbon emissions. Factories account for another 30% more and aviation for another 30% (I can't seem to remember the source of these, but I'm pretty sure this is correct:o )
I don't understand why the auto industry has to be the one to face the emission cuts. Let's see the aviation industry and the factories do their share of the work...
-
Well what is find worst is that CO2 is only a minor contributor to the greenhouse thing. In a sense we are all lied to :o
-
[QUOTE=drakkie]Well what is find worst is that CO2 is only a minor contributor to the greenhouse thing. In a sense we are all lied to :o[/QUOTE]
Beat me to it :)
Plus even we don't make the most CO2, nature itself does.
-
This is great. Yeah it sucks for fast cars but it's good for the planet.
CO2 is indeed a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect; CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. However, we are upsetting the balance and that's the problem. At this point in time you'd be a complete moron to argue against the evidence. Scientific consensus has increased consistently over time.
The International Panel on Climate Change just released their latest findings (the last report was 2001). Compare the two. In 2001 the report concluded that something was happening, but scientists were reluctant to point out the cause because there was not enough research done to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. Over 5 years have passed and now we've got a lot more evidence and research to look at.
So what are the conclusions now in regard to climate change?
[LIST][*]The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%[*]The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%[*]It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought"][/URL] tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.[/LIST]
Drakkie, you should be proud to be European at a time like this.
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Plus even we don't make the most CO2, nature itself does.[/quote]
You fail at understanding.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]You fail at understanding.[/QUOTE]
:( Ok mabye...
I promise to do more research before posting...
-
[quote=The_Canuck]:( Ok mabye...
I promise to do more research before posting...[/quote]
Good stuff :)
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]Good stuff :)[/QUOTE]
But I will stick to the point that it is still a debate and global warming/climate change caused by humans is still a [I]theory[/I]... :)
-
In my opinion car manufacturers should be forced to the 140gr/km target for 2008, as the agreement stated. Fiat, Citroen and Renault will most likely reach the target so there's no excuse for all the other manufacturers.
Those were the numbers for 2005:
2005
1.Fiat 139
------------limit for 2008 140-----------------
2.Citroen 144
3.Renault 149
4.Seat 150
5.Ford 151
6.Peugeot 151
7.Skoda 152
8.Opel/Vauxhall 156
9.Volkswagen 159
10.Toyota 163
11.Suzuki 165
12.Honda 166
13.KIA 170
14.Hyundai 170
15.Nissan 172
16.Audi 177
17.Mazda 177
18.Mercedes Benz 185
19.BMW 192
20.Volvo 195
[URL="http://www.autoscoops.be/autoforum/viewtopic.php?t=14417&highlight=fiat+clean"]Source[/URL].
-
These regulations are a great opportunity for certain sportscar companies.
In particular, companies who produce lightweight sportscars will have a big advantage. Imagine Honda S2000 vs Lotus Elise 111R. The Lotus is about 300 kg lighter, so in order to get the same performance it employs a smaller engine. And because it's so light this means smaller CO2 emissions.
Regulatory changes are for some companies threats and for others great opportunities.
-
[quote=The_Canuck]But I will stick to the point that it is still a debate and global warming/climate change caused by humans is still a [I]theory[/I]... :)[/quote]
Sure, but you won't get much respect for doing it. Gravity is also just a theory. The fact that something is "just a theory" doesn't invalidate it. There is a single truth, it's just that at this point we can "only" have extreme certainty that it's true.
It is not a debate anymore. You get to a certain point where you can become extremely certain of something. At this point it's stupid not to agree. You can stick to your point and argue that climate change is caused by natural causes if you'd like, but please realise that the thousands of brilliant unbiased scientists who make up this committee disagree with you.
-
[QUOTE=lightweight]These regulations are a great opportunity for certain sportscar companies.
In particular, companies who produce lightweight sportscars will have a big advantage. Imagine Honda S2000 vs Lotus Elise 111R. The Lotus is about 300 kg lighter, so in order to get the same performance it employs a smaller engine. And because it's so light this means smaller CO2 emissions.
Regulatory changes are for some companies threats and for others great opportunities.[/QUOTE]
I believe the future of fast cars will be lightweight and not very powerful with good acceleration and low top speed. Not only because the emission regulation, but also because engines powered by alternative fuels are usually less powerful than comparable petrol powered engines. Add to this the incresingly restrictive speed limits almost everywhere, and you can see why I came to that conclusion.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]Sure, but you won't get much respect for doing it. Gravity is also just a theory. The fact that something is "just a theory" doesn't invalidate it. There is a single truth, it's just that at this point we can "only" have extreme certainty that it's true.
It is not a debate anymore. You get to a certain point where you can become extremely certain of something. At this point it's stupid not to agree. You can stick to your point and argue that climate change is caused by natural causes if you'd like, but please realise that the thousands of [B]brilliant unbiased[/B] scientists who make up this committee disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
Can you be sure?
But anyways, in the long run I guess we won't be around to find out who was right, or if it will even matter by then. So cheers to free speech and on going debates :p
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
:p
-
Fast cars will get bigger and more powerful if anything, HP sells and all that. We'll just have supercars that run on biofuels because of the higher octane rating of 102ron compared to the 99ron thats widely available.
-
[quote=The_Canuck]Can you be sure?
But anyways, in the long run I guess we won't be around to find out who was right, or if it will even matter by then. So cheers to free speech and on going debates :p
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
:p[/quote]
No, of course we can't be absolutely sure. The evidence now shows that we can be exponentially more sure than ever before, but no, we can't be absolutely sure. That doesn't matter.
Do you seriously disapprove of what I say? The most knowledgable scientists on the planet say there's a 90% chance that humans are causing it, and you're hesitant to say it's likely? What on earth is wrong with you?
The long run is [b]exactly[/b] why it matters. Cheers to free speech indeed, but cheers to logic more so. Holocaust deniers have a right to free speech too, but it doesn't make their opinions valid. Realise the difference between a right to speak and being correct.
-
Since the topic of global warming is been discussed, I've been reminded of a question I'd like to ask.
I recall reading that the continued rise in oceanic temperature is going to stop, or severly hinder, the jetstream. This will then plunge the northern hemisphere into a minor ice-age. Does anyone know if that's valid? I'd like to research it myself but I have to go.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]No, of course we can't be absolutely sure. The evidence now shows that we can be exponentially more sure than ever before, but no, we can't be absolutely sure. That doesn't matter.[/QUOTE]
I meant the part about how you said they're unbiased.
[QUOTE]Holocaust deniers have a right to free speech too, but it doesn't make their opinions valid. Realise the difference between a right to speak and being correct.[/QUOTE]
Err, the Holocaust is a fact, photographic evidence first hand accounts etcetera. Global Warming is a totally different arguement. It partly factual but the facts are only moderatly tied to the thesis, its all "reports" by various scientists and a few estimates.
I dunno mabye I haven't read a convincing argument yet, see If you can find a really good article thats all facts and I might change my opinion, for now though I'll remain neutral. :)
-
[quote=The_Canuck]It partly factual but the facts are only moderatly tied to the thesis, its all "reports" by various scientists and a few estimates.[/quote]
How do you not understand? It's all "reports" by "scientists"? Look man, it's not a conspiracy theory. If it was as easy as hunting down the fabled "global warming" and snapping a few photos, maybe we'd actually have some progress. If you don't believe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, then would do you think you should trust?
[quote]I dunno mabye I haven't read a convincing argument yet[/quote]
And whose fault is that?
[quote=The_Canuck]I promise to do more research before posting...[/quote]
Look, here is an overview of the recent IPCC report. Please keep in mind that everything they do is peer-reviewed, and the report [b]must[/b] be unanimous or they won't publish it. As far as being unbiased and all-inclusive goes, this is [b]the[/b] global report that really matters. It's a shame they only publish one every 5 years.
[url]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070129/ipcc_faq_070129/20070129?hub=SciTech[/url]
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck]for now though I'll remain neutral. :)[/QUOTE]
You can't have hard evidence on global warming. Nobody will show a picture as evidence.It's based on statistical findings.
A 90% certainty is pretty damn good evidence for most people, but yeah, there is a 10% chance it's wrong.
But for me, the argument isn't whether the phenomenon is caused by human action. Although I cannot prove it, it's pretty obvious that the problem is human-related.
The argument for me is WHEN scientists will be able to prove it 100% by developing the relevant scientific methods. It's just a matter of time.
But, as the management science says, there is "paralysis by over analysis". If mankind waits for a 100% confirmation, it might be too late.:)
-
[QUOTE=lightweight]You can't have hard evidence on global warming. Nobody will show a picture as evidence.It's based on statistical findings.
[/QUOTE]
I understand this and thats why I remain neutral. Sure there are statistics that point towards global warming/climate change because of human activities. But there are also stats that point torwards the arguement that humans do not affect the climate that much. (ie: Average temperatures havn't risen in nearly a decade and more CO2 comes from decaying plant matter then humans)
You have to decide what to believe I guess, and I think theres still to much conflict to make a clear descision.
-
[quote=The_Canuck]I understand this and thats why I remain neutral. Sure there are statistics that point towards global warming/climate change because of human activities. But there are also stats that point torwards the arguement that humans do not affect the climate that much. (ie: Average temperatures havn't risen in nearly a decade and more CO2 comes from decaying plant matter then humans)
You have to decide what to believe I guess, and I think theres still to much conflict to make a clear descision.[/quote]
The only way you could get to this point and say there is too much conflict to make a clear decision would be because you're not paying enough attention.
This mindset is much of the problem; in fact it's exactly the same mindset of creationism/evolution debate (let's not go there though). It's not [i]your[/i] job to come up with a reasonable interpretation of the truth. Climate change is not something you can make a value claim about. Climate change is empirical; so what do you do? You pay attention to the best possible sources.
Please read the report I linked to. You might realise that your arguments are totally false. For the record, yes, natural factors do contribute more to greenhouse gases, but [i]that is not the issue, it never has been, and it never will be[/i]. You might want to be careful saying that in a real debate; you will only make yourself look ignorant if you try to use that as a real point.
I don't know where you heard that "average temperatures haven't risen in nearly a decade". Seriously, nobody is even arguing that. This is the one thing that is absolutely not a matter of opinion. Nobody on either side of the debate can deny the rising temperatures - this is why it's always been an issue of "who is causing it" rather than "is it occuring".
Please read the link I posted earlier. This is a very prominent modern topic and it's necessary to keep up-tp-date with recent information. The IPCC report is a few days old, and it's the best information anyone has ever been able to come up with. The reason why everything is peer-reviewed is so that there is no bias. Please understand what science is.
-
[QUOTE=Egg Nog]This mindset is much of the problem; in fact it's exactly the same mindset of creationism/evolution debate (let's not go there though). It's not [i]your[/i] job to come up with a reasonable interpretation of the truth. Climate change is not something you can make a value claim about. Climate change is empirical; so what do you do? You pay attention to the best possible sources.
Please read the report I linked to. You might realise that your arguments are totally false. For the record, yes, natural factors do contribute more to greenhouse gases, but [i]that is not the issue, it never has been, and it never will be[/i]. You might want to be careful saying that in a real debate; you will only make yourself look ignorant if you try to use that as a real point.
I don't know where you heard that "average temperatures haven't risen in nearly a decade". Seriously, nobody is even arguing that. This is the one thing that is absolutely not a matter of opinion. Nobody on either side of the debate can deny the rising temperatures - this is why it's always been an issue of "who is causing it" rather than "is it occuring".
Please read the link I posted earlier. This is a very prominent modern topic and it's necessary to keep up-tp-date with recent information. The IPCC report is about a week old, and it's the best information anyone has ever been able to come up with. The reason why everything is peer-reviewed is so that there is no bias. Please understand what science is.[/QUOTE]
Ok I read it and it points towards the earth's climate changing, possibly due to human activitys. I guess the only reason I started arguing is because I'm annoyed at the media exposure "global warming" is getting, it's like freakin doomsday, and also it seems like alot of people have nothing better to talk about now and so they get media coverage by talking about earths imminent demise due to global warming, its annoying. Anyway I guess you could say I'm biased so disregard anything I say :rolleyes: :p
Oh and that thing about global temperatures not rising since 1998, google it, there is some info on it but I don't know how accurate it is.
-
it's a good step but until other industries and modes of transport, who contribute infinitely more gas into the atmosphere that new cars (who, lets face it, are getting cleaner by the day) at least match the Co2 Cut then it's the equivalent of scraping the surface.
I'm not a big supporter of the Global warming theory - there is evidence out there but at the same time there is also evidence and statistics saying this is just the earth's climactic balancing act. However if only for the health of our air change should be made.
The problem, as i see it with these new regulations, is that they do nothing to try and cut the Co2 of the vehicles already on the road - there are probably 20 times more cars that do not meet these new criteria but are still allowed on the roads. until something is done there also the top scraping issue comes back to the fore. Kudos for laying the groundwork but theres work to be done yet.
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck]Can you be sure?
the long run I guess we won't be around to find out who was right, or if it will even matter by then.
:p[/QUOTE]
Will you be around in 50 years? then be prepared to se up to 30% of global land mass go under the ocean from arctic and antarctic melting. Including the east and west coasts of the States.
Dont be a fool and delude yourself into that its next gens problem, yes it is but that doesnt mean we shouldnt help them to live on.
-
I don't know about anyone else but i'm buying some land about 5-10 metres above sea level shortly ;)
-
[Back to the original topic]
Yay! I think this is good news. I'm all for harsher restrictions for companies in most fields. In my opinion this is the best way to tackle the environmental problems as you cannot count on [I]every[/I] person to make drastic individual changes for the sake of a common good. When an entire industry is targeted it's (in theory) all equal playing fields and the most innovative will come out as winners. This also forces the companies to put more resources into research as the value of new environmentally friendly innovations increases. For the consumer it isn't a big change at all, there might be some short term price increases, but the way most people think is at long as it affects everybody we can all bicker and complain about it together but essentially it's ok.
-
[quick sidestep to offtopic]
Regards the believability of climate change, my city is currently affected by the worst drought in its history. Such is the dearth of rainfall in recent years that it is illegal to wash your car via domestic tap water
[QUOTE=govt water supplier]Inflows to our dams since 2001 have been on average two thirds less than the historical average. This year has been disastrous. Inflows are almost 90% below average.[/QUOTE]
90% !! :eek:
-
It seems like many parts of the world has had the most * in their history recently. We just had southern Finland's warmest December in recorded history, typical autumn weather all around. No signs of snow. Luckily the lovely cold is here now, I like it more than ever. I just looked at the temperature gauge, -23 degrees C, opened the window and took a deep breath of probably the cleanest capital air there is, smiled and made me a cup of hot chocolate.
-
My temp gauge says a balmy +31C @ 6.30 in the evening - this in Oz's coldest mainland capital, mind you - so I could be a bit amienable right now to some of that lovely Finnish weather :)
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows]there is evidence out there but at the same time there is also evidence and statistics saying this is just the earth's climactic balancing act.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the fact that you try to present both opposing opinions on the topic, but I have to disagree with one of them.
I'm not a scientist or anything, but common sense makes me think that, if all the weather changes were a balancing act, then it wouldn't happen so dranatically fast.
I remember that 5 years ago, none of these took place (even if some f it did, it was really mild weather changes on some parts of the world). These weather changes, if it was a balancing act, would happen in centuries or millenia.
Ice ages did not happen overnight. (lightweight, 2005):D
-
[QUOTE=lightweight]I appreciate the fact that you try to present both opposing opinions on the topic, but I have to disagree with one of them.
I'm not a scientist or anything, but common sense makes me think that, if all the weather changes were a balancing act, then it wouldn't happen so dranatically fast.
I remember that 5 years ago, none of these took place (even if some f it did, it was really mild weather changes on some parts of the world). These weather changes, if it was a balancing act, would happen in centuries or millenia.
Ice ages did not happen overnight. (lightweight, 2005):D[/QUOTE]
Indeed they don't - Global warming does not happen "Day after tomorrow" style. so why are they saying it's increasing in speed and veracity? it just smacks of scare tactic and is the worst form of environmental blackmail i've yet seen.
There is evidence out there which suggests the earth followed a similar pattern of heating and cooling for a very long time. while i agree the supposed veracity has increased, it's still cycling.
10 years ago these weather phenomena were blamed on El Nino. this time it's global warming. what will it be in 10 years time?
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows]10 years ago these weather phenomena were blamed on El Nino. this time it's global warming. what will it be in 10 years time?[/QUOTE]
The El Nino is (was) a part of the weather-system, so you can't exclude it from the phenomena that are happening now.
The El Nino and the weather extremes that we frequently hear on the news are just different versions of the same problem: Human activity affecting climate balance
-
El Nino was apparantly around long before humans - so that argument is null and void.
I accept Humans have had an effect on the world and that the status quo is no longer sustainable. but i don't think Global warming is the issue. global warming is just one giant umbrella under which many regional issues are grouped under. and has become a Media scare word.
"be careful when you sleep children....or global warming might make your room into an Igloo!"
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows]El Nino was apparantly around long before humans[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that El Nino was an adverse effect of global warming, but after googling it, I revised:)
My bad
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows]global warming is just one giant umbrella under which many regional issues are grouped under. and has become a Media scare word.[/QUOTE]
I agree that it has become a scare word, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
This means that journalists, in order to create a buzz, use the stereotype phrase: "Global warming this..", "Global warming that"...
But, to add some more data on the future policy of the EU concerning the Auto industry (remember? that was the original post:) ), let me contribute the following:
[QUOTE=http://www.just-auto.com/proactive/pdf/1a2ss34sw/lotus-newsletter-issue-18.pdf]
The European Commission (EC) has proposed that biofuels make up a minimum of 10% of all transport fuels by 2020.
The move its part of the EC’s “Renewable Energy Roadmap” that is integral to its new energy policy for Europe.
A proposed legislation package will include [B]legally binding targets[/B], but each member state will have the [B]freedom to determine the best renewable energy mix for its own country.[/B]
While biofuels are more expensive than other forms of renewable energy today, they are the only way to significantly reduce oil dependence in the transport sector over the next 15 years.[/QUOTE]
So, biofuels it is for the immediate future (the next 15 years). This means again that the cost of motoring increases (low mpg for biofuel vehicles) but at least the carbon emissions fall.
Another upside of this proposal (it's only a EU proposal, not a done deal) is that no significant investment will be made to current technology. Existing motors, with low-cost modifications can be used as biofuel motors.
-
Another clue on the CO2 emissions debate.
Five to 10 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions come, not from automobiles or forest fires, but from manufacturing cement. The global warming gas is released when limestone and clays are crushed and heated to high temperatures.
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/07/greenconcrete_tec.html?category=technology&guid=20070207093000&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000[/url]
-
[QUOTE=lightweight]Another clue on the CO2 emissions debate.
Five to 10 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions come, not from automobiles or forest fires, but from manufacturing cement. The global warming gas is released when limestone and clays are crushed and heated to high temperatures.
[url]http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/07/greenconcrete_tec.html?category=technology&guid=20070207093000&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000[/url][/QUOTE]
But does it matter? [QUOTE]The major natural greenhouse gases is water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth [/QUOTE]
-
1 Attachment(s)
The auto manufacturers are lobbying heavily against the EU proposal concerning CO2 emission reduction.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would "never agree" to any proposal that penalised makers of big cars.
In the light of Ms Merkel's uncompromising stance, an approach which sets a target for the industry as a whole - and spreads the burden across all Europe's manufacturers - will probably be needed.
So a proposed solution would be to measure the 120 g/km for the whole industry not for every manufacturer. This is a big help for companies that manufacture small quantities of big-engined cars. It would be unfair for Maybach, with its 6.0 V12 (they will bore and stroke it to 8 or 9 liters by 2012:D) to try and achieve a 120 g/km, when Fiat has a maximum engine capacity of 2,5 liters and 95% of its cars are less than 2 liters
-
[QUOTE=The_Canuck] The major natural greenhouse gases is water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth[/QUOTE]
Given that:
1. Recent scientific reports reach the conclusion that global warming is a human caused phenomenon
2. You can't stop water evaporating
Then:
It's better to concentrate on the sources of CO2 emissions that are human related and can be reduced with technological advances